Schnabel v. American Educational Alliance

79 Misc. 624, 140 N.Y.S. 369
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided March 15, 1913·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Bijur, J.

This judgment seems to have been rendered on the theory that a contract of employment which gave the plaintiff a “ drawing account of fifty dollars per week against commission at a fixed rate, etc.,” was not an agreement to pay fifty dollars per week absolutely, but only conditioned on the securing of orders. In this the learned [625] court was in error. Schlesinger v. Burland, 42 Misc. Rep. 206.

The exclusion of the so-called cross-examination of the plaintiff in a deposition, because the defendant declined to read the answers and plaintiff’s counsel thereupon offered to read them, also constituted reversible error. Kalkhoff Co. v. Russian Church, 67 Misc. Rep. 107.

Seabuey and Gebabd, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Schnabel v. American Educational Alliance, 79 Misc. 624, 140 N.Y.S. 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

79 Misc. 624 (Schnabel v. American Educational Alliance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reynolds v. Wood
65 S.W.2d 1114 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Dugan v. Forster
285 P. 384 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Shaler Umbrella Co. v. Blow
227 N.W. 1 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1929)
Donahoe v. Herrick
260 P. 150 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)
Schnabel v. American Educational Alliance
148 N.Y.S. 1143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)